The woman is an incoherent drivel-spouting machine struggling in the valleys of the mountains of clarity.

She thinks if she douses her random outpourings with few metaphors and some relationship twaddle then she must be making sense.

If one dissected her comments, dispensed with the confused jibberish and half-baked ideas, made generous interpretations of some of the mutterings she made, removed the remaining ninety percent of what she said, added some insights and analysis and then framed it all in passable grammar then you might have something, but she is as distant from making a useful commentary on the John Josie situation and house dynamics as John James is from his homeland.

The woman is linguistically challenged and logically inept.She is vaguely aware there is something not quite right about the relationship but cannot accurately analyse what it is or express her conclusions.

Idiotic comments about their relationship "rippling" into the house seemed to reflect her resentment that they, rather than her, were able to be the centre of attention despite the handicap of being under a duvet for most of the time. She was much more interested in giving this perspective than making a constructive analysis. If she is unhappy the house dynamics revolved around their antics then she should generate some house dynamics of her own ..... well actually she probably can't.

The only thing she said that was remotely connected to a valid analysis of the relationship was that John James didn't seemed to be as enthusiastic as Josie and that if she were in Josie's position she wouldn't be content. Jesus! That can be said concisely and clearly very easily.